|
|
| Author |
Message |
gull
|
|
Geek Social Fallacies
| 
Dec 5 20:48 UTC 2003 |
Here's an interesting web page, titled "Five Geek Social Fallacies":
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
The title is a bit of a misnomer, since I've known a lot of non-geeks
who suffered from some of these, too. However, they're certainly more
common in geek communities. This is well worth a read for anyone who
interacts with groups of geeks in any way.
|
| 54 responses total. |
sj2
|
|
response 1 of 54:
|
Dec 6 06:40 UTC 2003 |
Is this guy serious?
|
twenex
|
|
response 2 of 54:
|
Dec 6 10:55 UTC 2003 |
I've certainly been on one or the other end of
most of these situations (particularly #1 and
#5). I think we can all, as GRexers, say that we
don't make a point of excluding eejits and
"undesirables" from using Grex, though whether
you think that's a bad thing obviously depends on
how indoctrinated to the normal social order you
are, or pretend to be. At least no Grexer can be
accused of inflicting halitosis on another
grexer, unless they meat in person - which sems
to be less common that it might be.
The interesting thing, is (even though the author
admits it) this article paints a picture that
says "all geeks exhibit 1 or more of these
characteristics, whist all-non-geeks exhibit non
of them". This is similar to the claim that geeks
exhibit higher incidences of such "defects" as
ADD and Asperger's syndrome. While I know no-one
who, to my knowledge, suffers from ADD or
Asperger's, I knnow several people who, not being
gfeeks, exhibit facets of one or other of the
symptons mentioneed in the article; not being
geeks (most defiunitely not!), they are described
as "merely insecure",etc. Hwever, in my personal
experience anyone found to be a geek is condemned
to be taunted for real or perceived faults along
the lines of these "Geek Social Fallacies";
apparently if you're a geek it's your fault
you're awkward, whereas if you're not, it isn't.
Perhaps the fact that #1 happens so often is an
"equal and opposite" reaction to "normal"
society's entirely-too-broad definition of what
is unacceptable or strange?
|
sj2
|
|
response 3 of 54:
|
Dec 6 17:40 UTC 2003 |
Slow down, Jeff :P
|
twenex
|
|
response 4 of 54:
|
Dec 7 00:28 UTC 2003 |
Heh. Sorryi'lltrytobemoreconciceinfuture,ok?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 5 of 54:
|
Dec 7 01:35 UTC 2003 |
I think geeks do exhibit a higher incidence of Asperger's.
|
willcome
|
|
response 6 of 54:
|
Dec 7 02:24 UTC 2003 |
And then there's whatever the fuck I have.
|
sj2
|
|
response 7 of 54:
|
Dec 7 06:46 UTC 2003 |
Are you a geek? Or just a wannabe? ;-)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 8 of 54:
|
Dec 7 15:59 UTC 2003 |
Re #6: Fetal alcohol syndrome's actually pretty rare in the geek population.
|
gull
|
|
response 9 of 54:
|
Dec 8 16:41 UTC 2003 |
I agree that it's not true that only geeks exhibit those social
problems. But they do seem more common in the geek population. There
are very good reasons for some of them to happen, as twenex points out,
but you can only get so far by saying "I'm that way because of how I was
treated as a kid." Eventually you have to take responsibility for your
own actions.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 54:
|
Dec 8 18:06 UTC 2003 |
Could somebody venture an objective definition of "geek" that's
appropriate for this context? (I assume that the old definition
"a carnival performer who does disgusting acts" is not what's
meant.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 11 of 54:
|
Dec 8 18:43 UTC 2003 |
As a very rough approximation, "geek" in this context can be
read as "Socially awkward, technologically inclined person."
|
happyboy
|
|
response 12 of 54:
|
Dec 8 20:13 UTC 2003 |
re5: BINGO!
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 54:
|
Dec 8 21:09 UTC 2003 |
Somewhat analogous to "nerd".
|
flem
|
|
response 14 of 54:
|
Dec 8 22:38 UTC 2003 |
Eh. Reading that page left me kind of cold. I don't think the author
is real solid on social skills himself.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 54:
|
Dec 8 22:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #11: Hm, I used to be a geek then. Still have some of the
characteristics.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 16 of 54:
|
Dec 9 01:28 UTC 2003 |
I recognized a lot of stuff on that page from the science fiction and gaming
communities. I've got other problems with the way he described it, but I see
where he's coming from.
|
twenex
|
|
response 17 of 54:
|
Dec 9 08:48 UTC 2003 |
Re: #9: I agree that you have to take responsibility for your own
actions, but the fact remains that, if someone beats up on yuou
constantly for something, sooner or later, whether it's true or not,
you are goiung to get sick of the way they are treating you. This, to
take a more extreme example, is the origin of the doctrine of
"diminished responsibility" in uk law, wherebya person cannot be
convicted of a murderous crime if it can be shown that the victim, by
mistreatment, drove the accused to a state of mind in which the murder
(or murder attempt) was seen as the only way out of the situation.
ASdded to that the idea of "every reaction causes an equal and
opposite reaction", and the fact that if the person is strong-willed,
he will often cleave to a behaviour that is deemed "unacceptable" by
way of indicating his independence, and you have aid the groundwork
for a taunted geek to become even more "geeky" according to the terms
of this article.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 54:
|
Dec 9 18:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 19 of 54:
|
Dec 9 18:55 UTC 2003 |
No. I never heard of anyhone claiming that Columbine was caused by the
direct efect of abuse by anyone shot in the school on the kids who
did. Also, the fact that someone is found not guilty of murder on the
grounds of diminished responsibility does not mean that the murder is
legal; it just means that they fall into that category of persons who
cannot be held responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be
judged by hte legal system, which acts on responsible persons and
therefore, woulde have different rules of procedure, etc. if the
person were e.g. a child as well.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 54:
|
Dec 9 19:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 21 of 54:
|
Dec 9 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Ah. Well, anyway, i believe dimished responsibility has to be proven
by ref to near-immediate, extreme physical or mental stress.
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 54:
|
Dec 9 19:43 UTC 2003 |
Sort of like an insanity defense in the U.S.?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 23 of 54:
|
Dec 10 01:20 UTC 2003 |
Except that it might occasionally work.
It actually sounds closer to involuntary manslaughter.
|
twenex
|
|
response 24 of 54:
|
Dec 10 15:03 UTC 2003 |
Re: 22, 23: No, insanity means there is no external stimulus; you just
have to prove someone was insane at the time of the incident. It's
more a temporary madness caused by the ill treatment.
|